About writing, literature, and life, and where they intersect.

Mass Market Means Less Mass

It is an unfortunate fact that publishers have decided in recent years to switch from the mass market paperback which has been popular since World War II (and helped to kill the pulp magazine, grrr) to the trade paperback edition, which apparently, because of its different size, is more economical. That may be true, but it’s still a pain in the neck.

Trade paperback, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

You cost more. The average mass market paperback costs $7.99, last time I checked. The average trade paperback goes for $14.99. I may spend $7.99 on an author I don’t know, but I won’t spend $14.99 on an author I do know. It doesn’t matter how much more sense they make to print; if you’re not selling a copy, you’re still losing money.

You are hard to shelve. I’m a reader, always have been. My library has to exceed 10,000 volumes, most of which are in boxes. I have to save space where I can. Not to put too fine a point on it, but size does matter.

You are hard to carry. Mass market paperbacks were designed to be carried by soldiers in the field. They could fit into backpacks without much trouble. This remains true today. Trade paperbacks don’t work like that; they don’t fit in your pocket or purse, and they don’t fit as well in your hand. It’s the same reason I opt for a smaller phone.

I much prefer reading paper books to ebooks, for a lot of reasons. But if this trend toward larger paperbacks continues, I may have no choice but to shift to electronic reading. This will make me sad, publishers. And it will be your fault.